Nvidia shareholders care because this is the CEO sleeping with customers and people who report to him. Those are both big no-no's.
If he only slept with sex workers or friends or anonymous sex parties, that wouldn't be an issue. It is not the sex per se or infidelity to his wife, it is the power dynamics and leverage over him which is an issue.
That's not even considering that the customer is also suspected of being a spy for the United State's primary geopolitical adversary.
If it's consensual, then why is it a problem? Rest assured most of the ceos are fn left and right, everyone at arms length. The lady at the groceries, the cleaning lady, plus the clerk at the coffee shop :D. People with high level IQ also do all kinds of deviant things in their sex life.
Prudish people, while they run amok in their everyday life doing partner gymnastics with anyone and everyone. Yet, they try to dictate what a ceo should or should not do. Ridiculous.
If you don't make it a big deal, it's just going normalize executives having more and more public affairs in direct violation of their own company's rules. It's not a corporate culture I'm interested in further proliferating.
Same. If “who cares”, then why come out and defend/deflect?
I mean, isn’t it obvious that it shows at minimum poor judgment and susceptibility to influence. Then when the affair is with a spy or with an employee there are more serious issues to consider.
I don’t myself care about his personal life, but these affairs do raise questions about his integrity and capabilities, and he is answerable to the board, to shareholders and to some extent the public.
I also note that he hired a “clean up” PR firm some time ago… so that implies that he is concerned about his public image.
Company shareholders should care about his lack of integrity. If he can lie to his own family, he can lie to them.
Americans should care that in a government organization, someone as compromised as him couldn't qualify for security clearance to work on as economically sensitive matters as he does. If your economy is going to be highly dependent on single individuals, and they're able to be compromised by spies and irresponsible extramarital relationships with employees, you have a huge problem.
This is not his "private life", this is him sleeping with his staff and spies?
If he was banging professional sex workers in a jurisdiction where that was legal, I'd probably agree, it's his business, but this is not what was going on.
I don't like people who don't understand the words they use, so please be informed: it's not prudish to be turned off by infidelity.
People don't find infidelity objectionable because of the sex; they find it objectionable because it involves dishonesty, breaking trust and violating boundaries.
Many, many people who "love" sex are offended by infidelity, and their feelings aren't based on a judgment against sex.
I care because as a NVIDIA shareholder (index funds that is) I now have to revise-down my mental model re: the company leadership's ability to use good judgement.
The amount I'd be willing to pay for the company is now less considering I have information that points to leadership having less than stellar judgement.
Because people, especially leaders, are expected to follow rules and have a moral compass. If he can't be bothered by company rules, ethics, etc., then why should his employees care about them?
And that's even aside from the practical fact that this makes him an easy target for blackmail.
My uncle attended the wedding. She consented to a marriage, not an open relationship. Fidelity was always in view. Even without my remotely personal ties, this is an obvious thing to any onlooker.
It really is something how people will weasel about words to suggest improbable scenarios to try to escape the judgement that normative morality brings.
I'm not sure you really mean this. If public apologies were for public crimes then it mean you wouldn't want a public apology, recompense, and absolute anathematization of all the billionaries who went to the island.
If this was the case, it would mean he's not that bright and being given bad advice.
If you have an open relationship, you come out and basically say that this is the case. You then express regret that your personal affairs have become a public issue for the company.
Admitting to infidelity if there wasn't actually infidelity is a big problem because infidelity involves betrayal of trust. Few people, including Nvidia investors, really care where Huang sticks his you-know-what. They care about his judgment and integrity. An affair calls those into question.
It's not that it's happening, it's who it's happening between. Having an affair with a subordinate is what gets HR mad at you (or in Jensen's case, shareholders). Having an affair with a potential spy from a rival nation gets the government mad at you.
If he was getting it on with some rando down the street that was in no way affiliated with the company or foreign governments, it wouldn't matter as much.
When its a public company CEO the ones who care are usually investors and depending on the company the government. It can put the company (thus investors and/or nation security) at risk
From Nvidia/their investors' perspective: it shows lack of good judgment that might cause future scandals or blackmail, stirs up media attention that distracts from the company's work, hurts the company's image as a fair employer, and damages the reputation of the human face of the company.
Do you think when it's your subordinates and foreign spies using you to break the law it's a problem, or should we go full on Russia and just be done with the law and accept corruption wholesale?
> Spies could be a major problem, but that's not what this article is about.
If a CEO is having affairs and disregarding common workplace policies that makes them more easily targeted by those spies (or others who seek to compromise them) that could be a major problem
If the company doesn't have a "no sleeping with underlings" policy, and the CEO and his wife says "we have an open relationship", the CEO sleeping with anyone will gain a "meh". But since this CEO agreed to:
1) sleep only with his wife
2) follow company rules, including about sleeping with colleagues
the public learning that he's been breaking those agreements means he was vulnerable to being blackmailed at any point he was doing so...
Are you serious? There's a very high chance of a divorce in his near future, and it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to predict the impact it will have on his work performance.
Morality aside, he's about to enter a _rough_ era of his personal life. Unless you think his wife is going to accept a _second_ public affair, and not even with some sort of governmental honeypot.
If you believe CEOs significantly impact stock price, this is a clear indicator that quality is about to nosedive. I don't particularly ascribe to that belief, but a lot of the market does, and this is sort of a "duh" moment for them.
Part of my worldview is to inextricably tie my actions, thoughts and aspirations to a transcendent authoritative framework that makes claims on morality.
This means that when people who own companies that I invest in do blatantly and provably incongruent actions, I will divest. If I own enough of that company to vote, I’ll vote against them. This applies to all of life. While I can’t say that I’m completely consistent, I do my best :).
Most people don't truly care about his personal situation, they care about what will happen to their $NVDA. The idea that people wont want to buy into companies because they are ran by imperfect people is laughably hilarious when things like tesla exist.
They are not as righteous as they want to think, they are just worried their gambling wont be as profitable as they would have liked, the ultimate sin on a site like this i suppose :)
The market, so far to the tune of roughly $360 billion in NVDA market capitalization being vaporized by its horny CEO in a few hours.
This whole Jenga tower is supported by credit, and credit is supported by confidence. "The vibes are off" is literally all it takes to collapse this whole bubble, and clearly the vibes are off with Huang.
Half the country somehow thinks that the president is selected by god - just like olden days when people thought touching the king could cure sickness.
Both are forms of a person using their position to do what they wish to others beneath them, because they can and they wish to show others they have the power.
Possibly, but there’s also a pretty simple alternative: he wasn’t exactly being discrete with his first affair, and suddenly every reporter in the world turned their attention on him. It’s a lot easier to find dirt when you’re actively looking for it.
Some more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50459321
Who cares?
I'm literally asking - if you care, wanna explain why?
Nvidia shareholders care because this is the CEO sleeping with customers and people who report to him. Those are both big no-no's.
If he only slept with sex workers or friends or anonymous sex parties, that wouldn't be an issue. It is not the sex per se or infidelity to his wife, it is the power dynamics and leverage over him which is an issue.
That's not even considering that the customer is also suspected of being a spy for the United State's primary geopolitical adversary.
If it's consensual, then why is it a problem? Rest assured most of the ceos are fn left and right, everyone at arms length. The lady at the groceries, the cleaning lady, plus the clerk at the coffee shop :D. People with high level IQ also do all kinds of deviant things in their sex life.
Prudish people, while they run amok in their everyday life doing partner gymnastics with anyone and everyone. Yet, they try to dictate what a ceo should or should not do. Ridiculous.
It's a problem because Jensen wants open models to thrive and some people with power want to lock down GPUs to control them.
All hail our betters the ceos
If you don't make it a big deal, it's just going normalize executives having more and more public affairs in direct violation of their own company's rules. It's not a corporate culture I'm interested in further proliferating.
At this point I'm really considering all of these comments related to Huang's conduct being "fine" or "not a problem" astroturfing.
Same. If “who cares”, then why come out and defend/deflect?
I mean, isn’t it obvious that it shows at minimum poor judgment and susceptibility to influence. Then when the affair is with a spy or with an employee there are more serious issues to consider.
I don’t myself care about his personal life, but these affairs do raise questions about his integrity and capabilities, and he is answerable to the board, to shareholders and to some extent the public.
I also note that he hired a “clean up” PR firm some time ago… so that implies that he is concerned about his public image.
Why should I care he has affairs ?
Company shareholders should care about his lack of integrity. If he can lie to his own family, he can lie to them.
Americans should care that in a government organization, someone as compromised as him couldn't qualify for security clearance to work on as economically sensitive matters as he does. If your economy is going to be highly dependent on single individuals, and they're able to be compromised by spies and irresponsible extramarital relationships with employees, you have a huge problem.
I'm not a shareholder, and all CEO lie
Isn't lying the main job of CEOs at that scale?
Maybe. In my case I just don't like prudes, especially of the grandstanding variety.
This is not his "private life", this is him sleeping with his staff and spies?
If he was banging professional sex workers in a jurisdiction where that was legal, I'd probably agree, it's his business, but this is not what was going on.
Interesting level of specificity.
Would you care if he was banging professional sex workers in a jurisdiction where that was illegal?
I don't like people who don't understand the words they use, so please be informed: it's not prudish to be turned off by infidelity.
People don't find infidelity objectionable because of the sex; they find it objectionable because it involves dishonesty, breaking trust and violating boundaries.
Many, many people who "love" sex are offended by infidelity, and their feelings aren't based on a judgment against sex.
Ehhh affairs are one thing, affairs with employees come with a lot of corporate implications. Also affairs with someone with ties to MSS is bad
I care because as a NVIDIA shareholder (index funds that is) I now have to revise-down my mental model re: the company leadership's ability to use good judgement.
The amount I'd be willing to pay for the company is now less considering I have information that points to leadership having less than stellar judgement.
Because people, especially leaders, are expected to follow rules and have a moral compass. If he can't be bothered by company rules, ethics, etc., then why should his employees care about them?
And that's even aside from the practical fact that this makes him an easy target for blackmail.
So many reasons. Honesty matters. Being faithful to your spouse matters.
I have not been keeping up with this story, do we know that his wife didn't know about it?
If she did would it matter?
Well, then fidelity and honesty wouldn't be relevant imo.
My uncle attended the wedding. She consented to a marriage, not an open relationship. Fidelity was always in view. Even without my remotely personal ties, this is an obvious thing to any onlooker.
It really is something how people will weasel about words to suggest improbable scenarios to try to escape the judgement that normative morality brings.
If she knew about it, ostensibly he wouldn't have had to issue a public apology to her.
I don't really think that's a given. A public apology is for the public, not her or them as a couple.
It could just be that he doesn't want to publicly admit they had an open relationship.
(I'm not saying this is the case, I have no idea, only saying it's possible)
I'm not sure you really mean this. If public apologies were for public crimes then it mean you wouldn't want a public apology, recompense, and absolute anathematization of all the billionaries who went to the island.
If this was the case, it would mean he's not that bright and being given bad advice.
If you have an open relationship, you come out and basically say that this is the case. You then express regret that your personal affairs have become a public issue for the company.
Admitting to infidelity if there wasn't actually infidelity is a big problem because infidelity involves betrayal of trust. Few people, including Nvidia investors, really care where Huang sticks his you-know-what. They care about his judgment and integrity. An affair calls those into question.
It's not that it's happening, it's who it's happening between. Having an affair with a subordinate is what gets HR mad at you (or in Jensen's case, shareholders). Having an affair with a potential spy from a rival nation gets the government mad at you.
If he was getting it on with some rando down the street that was in no way affiliated with the company or foreign governments, it wouldn't matter as much.
> Who cares?
When its a public company CEO the ones who care are usually investors and depending on the company the government. It can put the company (thus investors and/or nation security) at risk
People like the frisson of reading about others indiscretions.
Not an entirely untrue statement! More at 11.
From Nvidia/their investors' perspective: it shows lack of good judgment that might cause future scandals or blackmail, stirs up media attention that distracts from the company's work, hurts the company's image as a fair employer, and damages the reputation of the human face of the company.
Why would I care that the public face of a stock I hold is proving to be unprofessional?
Who you have sex with is part of your profession?
Do you think when it's your subordinates and foreign spies using you to break the law it's a problem, or should we go full on Russia and just be done with the law and accept corruption wholesale?
As an investor I couldn't care less if the CEO has sex with his subordinates. What a laughable idea.
Spies could be a major problem, but that's not what this article is about.
> an investor I couldn't care less if the CEO has sex with his subordinates
That doesn’t make the risk and cost associated with those actions go away.
> Spies could be a major problem, but that's not what this article is about.
If a CEO is having affairs and disregarding common workplace policies that makes them more easily targeted by those spies (or others who seek to compromise them) that could be a major problem
Is "blackmail" not in your dictionary?
If the company doesn't have a "no sleeping with underlings" policy, and the CEO and his wife says "we have an open relationship", the CEO sleeping with anyone will gain a "meh". But since this CEO agreed to:
1) sleep only with his wife
2) follow company rules, including about sleeping with colleagues
the public learning that he's been breaking those agreements means he was vulnerable to being blackmailed at any point he was doing so...
Letting structural power abuse slide is how we got here. But why start now amirite?
> Rumors of an affair between Huang and Powell have circulated for years, in part because Powell lacks a background in health or science...
You want that guy running your company?
Are you serious? There's a very high chance of a divorce in his near future, and it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to predict the impact it will have on his work performance.
Morality aside, he's about to enter a _rough_ era of his personal life. Unless you think his wife is going to accept a _second_ public affair, and not even with some sort of governmental honeypot.
If you believe CEOs significantly impact stock price, this is a clear indicator that quality is about to nosedive. I don't particularly ascribe to that belief, but a lot of the market does, and this is sort of a "duh" moment for them.
Part of my worldview is to inextricably tie my actions, thoughts and aspirations to a transcendent authoritative framework that makes claims on morality.
This means that when people who own companies that I invest in do blatantly and provably incongruent actions, I will divest. If I own enough of that company to vote, I’ll vote against them. This applies to all of life. While I can’t say that I’m completely consistent, I do my best :).
Most people don't truly care about his personal situation, they care about what will happen to their $NVDA. The idea that people wont want to buy into companies because they are ran by imperfect people is laughably hilarious when things like tesla exist.
They are not as righteous as they want to think, they are just worried their gambling wont be as profitable as they would have liked, the ultimate sin on a site like this i suppose :)
> Who cares?
The market, so far to the tune of roughly $360 billion in NVDA market capitalization being vaporized by its horny CEO in a few hours.
This whole Jenga tower is supported by credit, and credit is supported by confidence. "The vibes are off" is literally all it takes to collapse this whole bubble, and clearly the vibes are off with Huang.
Vaporized? :DD Stock market is moved by the idiots. Idiots come and go. Nothing changes.
I think they wanted Jensen Huang out of the equation before it gets bigger. End of story.
You are certainly free not to care as are others who care. What's your point?
America is the land of cults and leadership.
Half the country somehow thinks that the president is selected by god - just like olden days when people thought touching the king could cure sickness.
There is a difference between affair with a potential spy/subordinate vs sex workers.
I don't think we need to explain why here assuming everyone is discussing in good faith.
No, thats because your perspective is different.
Both are forms of a person using their position to do what they wish to others beneath them, because they can and they wish to show others they have the power.
[dead]
It's quite the coincidence that two distinct stories have broken in just a few days. There is clearly nothing being orchestrated here.
Possibly, but there’s also a pretty simple alternative: he wasn’t exactly being discrete with his first affair, and suddenly every reporter in the world turned their attention on him. It’s a lot easier to find dirt when you’re actively looking for it.
I wonder if he had to, to cover up all the chip smuggling he was doing.